YOGESH KUMAR AGRAWAL,RAIPUR V. RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 6/RPR/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Yogesh Kumar Agrawal, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, concerning the Assessment Year 2015-16. The primary contention was that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without considering the merits, as the appellant failed to comply with procedural requirements. The Assessing Officer had earlier made significant additions to the assessee's income, alleging bogus purchases. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) did not provide a reasoned decision on the merits of the case and had dismissed the appeal solely based on the non-compliance of the appellant.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 845112 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2026
• Other Referred Cases: Prem Kumar Arjun Das Luthra HUF vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: BIKRAM JAIN
• Keywords: Set aside; Corroborative evidences; Unexplained expenditure; Bogus purchase; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Bogus
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 271(1)(c); 69C

Judgement Text

" 1 आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR ŵी पाथŊ सारथी चौधरी, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अवधेश क ुमार िमŵ, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 06/RPR/2026 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Yogesh Kumar Agrawal, 307, Samta Shoping Arcade, Samta Colony, Raipur, C. G.-492001 Vs Assessing Officer, Central Revenue Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, C.G.-492001 PAN: ACIPA4236G (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Bikram Jain, CA. राजˢ की ओर से / Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 18/03/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 20/03/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, AM: This appeal for Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2015-16 filed by the assessee is directed against order dated 20.11.2025 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’), Delhi [‘CIT(A)’] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’). 2. The assessee has challenged the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the following two issues: (i) The order is against the principles of natural justice; Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.06/RPR/2026 Yogesh Kumar Agrawal vs. AO, Raipur 2 (ii) The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the additions only on suspicions and not on merit 3. The relevant facts necessary for adjudication of this appeal are that the assessee, filed his original Income Tax Return (‘ITR’) declaring income of Rs.24,20,290/-. Thereafter, the case was scrutinized and the assessment order was passed by making additions of Rs.73,48,753/-. Thereafter, the case was re- opened under section 148 of the Act on the reasoning that the assessee has taken accommodation entries in guise of bogus purchases of Rs.1,29,99,949/- in the relevant year. Thereafter, the Ld. Assessing Officer (‘AO’) observing as under completed the assessment which included the addition of Rs.73,48,653/- already made in order passed under section 143(3) of the Act and further addition of Rs.89,22,586/- on account of bogus purchases: “3.7 Point-wise rebuttal of reply of the assessed including analysis of any case law relied upon and Conclusion. 1) Unexplained expenditure - There are no evidences that the payments made by cheque to M/s. M/s Maa Sharda Process were for the purpose of purchases. There is no evidence that the amount had been received by M/s. M/s Maa Sharda Process and for the purpose of purchases. Assessee has failed to furnish any document. Since there are sales, there has to be purchases. The genuineness of purported purchase from M/s. M/s Maa Sharda Process could not be established. It only proves that the assessee made purchases out of books and obtained the bills from M/s Maa Sharda Process to regularize such out of books purchases. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.06/RPR/2026 Yogesh Kumar Agrawal vs. AO, Raipur 3 Assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidence regarding to good transportation. It is onus upon assessee to justify his claim and give the supporting evidence. But assessee has failed to discharge his duty. Therefore, the expenditure by way of taking bogus bills from M/s Maa Sharda Process and Shri Rakesh Sharma of Rs. 84,22,596/- is hereby treated as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the IT Act and added to the total income of the assessee. Since, the assessee has shown purchase from M/s Maa Sharda process of Rs. 84,22,596/- instead of 1,29,99,949/- Penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars.” 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal an ex-parte due to non prosecution as under: “5.2 I have gone through the materialistic facts of the case and the contention of the appellant. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant has furnished Grounds of Appeal, Statement of Facts and., Form no. 35 which has been taken on record. It is found that the appellant has not submitted anything in his support. During the appellant proceedings, the undersigned has issued notices u/s 250 of the Act to the appellant on 12/08/2025, 09/10/2025, 31/10/2025 and 12/11/2025. However, the appellant did not make any submission to any of these notices and remained completely silent during the appellate proceedings. In this case, the appellant was given several opportunities to make submissions during appeal proceedings by issue of notices u/s 250 as mentioned above. However, the appellant did not bother to file submission to these statutory notices issued by the undersigned. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.06/RPR/2026 Yogesh Kumar Agrawal vs. AO, Raipur 4 5.3 I have carefully considered the Order passed on 08/05/2023 under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the IT Act for the A.Y. 2015-16, the grounds of appeal preferred by the appellant and the facts of the case. In this case, appellant was given several opportunities to make submissions during appeal proceedings by issue of notices u/s 250 as mentioned in above para. However, the appellant has not submitted any supporting documents in its support. 5.4……………………………. 5.5……………………………. 5.6…………………………….. 5.7…………………………….. 5.8……………………………. 5.9 Since the appellant has not presented any arguments or submissions or any paper filed in support of its claim, the appeal is decided judiciously based on materials available on record. I have perused the impugned order passed on 08/05/2023 under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the IT Act for the A.Y.2015-16 in which addition of Rs.84,22,596/- as variation in respect of issue of unexplained expenditure was made by the AO. During the assessment proceedings, the AO has provided multiple opportunities to the appellant. Therefore, it cannot be said that he was not given proper and sufficient time to explain the reasons for his failure to submit the requisite details before the AO and the undersigned. It was his statutory liability to explain and avail all the opportunities of being heard which was not complied during the assessment proceedings. The responsibility of discharging natural justice was properly and carefully discharged by the AO. The appellant did not bother to submit response to statutory notices Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.06/RPR/2026 Yogesh Kumar Agrawal vs. AO, Raipur 5 issued to it despite having been allowed ample time and sufficient opportunities. 5.10 In view of the above discussion, arguments by the appellant and the AO, facts and material considered and the fact that in-spite of several opportunities granted, the appellant has not furnished any submission in support of the grounds of appeal during the appeal proceeding, I see no reason to disturb the categorical findings of the assessing officer regarding these additions. Hence, grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed” 5. At the outset, Shri Bikram Jain, CA, Ld. Authorized Representative (‘AR’) of the assessee drew our attention to the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) had decided the appeal ex-parte as the appellant assessee failed to ensure any compliance. He prayed for remanding the case back to the Ld. CIT(A). 6. Dr. Priyanka Patel, Ld. Sr. DR, drawing our attention to various paras of the assessment order and impugned appellate order, submitted that the Authorities below had provided reasonable opportunities of being heard to the appellant assessee; however, the appellant assessee tactfully ensured noncompliance to avoid investigations. Hence, she prayed for dismissing the appeal. On our specific query, the Ld. Sr. DR reluctantly admitted for remanding the case back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of the case on merit. 7. We have heard both parties and have perused the material available on the record. We have taken note of the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has not decided the appeal after discussing the issue in detail and his reasons for agreeing with the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.06/RPR/2026 Yogesh Kumar Agrawal vs. AO, Raipur 6 assessment order though he/she, as per provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, is obliged to dispose of the appeal in writing with well-reasoned order on each point of determination arisen for his consideration. It is evident from the perusal of section 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act that the CIT(A) is required to apply his/her mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him/her, whether or not these issues have been raised by the assessee before him/her. On cumulative consideration of the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act read with sections 250(4), 250(5), 251(1)(a), 251(1)(b) of the Act and Explanation of section 251(2) of the Act, the CIT(A) is not empowered to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution of appeal and is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merit. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Prem Kumar Arjun Das Luthra HUF, (2017) 291 CTR 614 (Bom.). 8. We have taken note of the fact that the assessee has not made any compliance before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the non-compliance on the part of the assessee is the sole reason for dismissal of appeal. Even in such facts and circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) cannot dispose the appeal ex-parte due to non- prosecution as he has no option except to decide the case on merit also with detailed reasoning, which has not been done in this case. Considering the facts of the case, in the interest of justice, we, without offering any comment on merit of the case and in view of the above observation, find the impugned order deem fit to set aside and remand the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for deciding the case afresh/denovo, in accordance with the law, after providing adequate opportunity of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.06/RPR/2026 Yogesh Kumar Agrawal vs. AO, Raipur 7 being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly. Needless to say that the appellant assessee has to cooperate in remitted appellate proceedings in this case. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as above. Order pronounced in the open court on 20/03/2026. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) Sd/- (AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; िदनांक Dated 20/03/2026 HKS, PS आदेशकी Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, //True copy// (Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. The Pr. CIT, Raipur (C.G.) 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 5. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "